M’S Stadium Bonds Gain Support State Supreme Court Rules Finance Plan Constitutional

Rejecting yet another challenge to a new Seattle Mariners stadium, the state Supreme Court Friday said King County could spend $336 million in bonds to build the new facility.

“In short, the (opponents) have presented no compelling arguments” to back up their claim that the financing for the $414 million ballpark is unconstitutional, Justice Phil Talmadge wrote for the majority.

The 7-2 ruling means construction can continue on the ballpark. M’s president John W. Ellis issued a statement expressing “confidence that we can get the ballpark built within budget and on schedule by mid-1999.”

By contrast, Ken Johnsen, director of the Public Facilities District that was formed to oversee the project, said that target might be impossible.

The prime contractor, Hunt Kiewit, and subcontractors had been told to suspend work at 5 p.m. Friday, an order that was canceled when Johnsen learned of the ruling at 1:45 p.m.

“We still lost some time this week simply anticipating the need to suspend,” he said. “There’s really been two weeks, if you will, of fairly firm discussion (about a slowdown).”

Had the court not ruled, a slowdown would have been necessary to keep from spending more than the $51 million available from dedicated tax receipts and loans from King County and the Mariners, he said.

Had the court ruled a day earlier, the target date would have remained mid-1999, he said, adding that he would confer with representatives of the Mariners and contractors to review the timetable before the district board’s next meeting on Monday.

“We’re not playing games on this,” Johnsen said. “We have to address what impact the discussions of a potential delay have had on all aspects of our schedule.”

Having the bond proceeds in escrow has cost $10 million to $15 million in interest, but the project remains within budget, he added.

A leading opponent of the project, Chris Van Dyk of Citizens for More Important Things, said his group would review the prospect of an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, but added it was unlikely.

Opponents had asked the high court on May 13 to overturn a King County Superior Court decision and rule that the project violates the state constitution by making a “gift” to the club through what they say is low rent - $700,000 a year.

Two earlier Supreme Court rulings on other aspects of the project had also gone in favor of the Mariners.

The Supreme Court majority rejected the arguments of foes that:

The lease between the Public Facilities District and the Mariners was an “unconstitutional gift of public monies to a private organization.”

Taxes authorized by the 1995 Legislature to pay for the stadium financing bonds were unconstitutionally imposed and collected.

The state unconstitutionally delegated legislative authority to the Public Facilities District.

A proposed local initiative establishing more stringent debt limitations for King County should apply over a debt limit authorized by state statute.

In dissent, Justices Richard Sanders and Barbara Madsen said the stadium’s revenue return to taxpayers was “grossly inadequate when compared to taxpayer expenditure.”